Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday October 15, 2011 @10:21PM
from the martin-lawrence-not-available dept.

mikejuk writes "2012 is the one hundredth anniversary of Alan Turing's birth, with many celebration events being planned around the world. This week Warner Bros outbid other companies for the script of a biopic based on Turing's life. The script for The Imitation Game, by first-time screenwriter Graham Moore and based in turn on the biography by Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma, was snapped up by Warner Bros in a 7-figure deal. Right now the leading candidate to portray Turing is Leonardo DiCaprio."

I think I got my father to give Matt Damon a full chance (he tolerated him in Saving Private Ryan) and give DiCaprio a full one in a twofer by forcing him to watch "The Departed". "But Dad, it's a Scorsese gangster flick. How bad could it be? And if you let Mom pick, she's gonna make us watch another episode of Bridezillas."

Whatever they have together, it used to be DeNiro in DiCaprio's place. Since DeNiro hasn't partnered with another director, I'm guessing Scorsese makes and breaks these Scorsese+ItalianAmericanMaleLead relationships.

As long as the movie is of infinite length, and certain other conditions are observed, shouldn't it be possible for any actor to successfully play Turing, albeit quite possibly requiring impractical amounts of time to do so?

He has been quite good. There are more talented actors though. The thing with Leonardo DiCaprio though is that he may be the actor with the best judgement in what movies to play in. If you look at his filmography, you notice that he plays in relatively few movies, but those really tend to be smart, well put together movies.

I am kind of hoping that he does play Alan Turing, not necessarily for his acting skills so much, but just because it tells me that the script is likely to have been well done.

A story on Turing could exploits a lot of interesting angles. He's an important figure in computer science AND in cryptography. His most prestigious work was done with WWII in the backdrop, and helped the allies tremendously. Finally, he has the total romantic yet misunderstood hero story - his contribution was a war secret, he was condemned for his homosexuality by the state he helped so much, and died a Plato death.

There's a kickass script to be made out of that.

Oh and DiCaprio is a fine choice. Great actor, versatile enough to pull it out and to let the character be the story.

Neither, if the wiki article is correct: No mention of how Touring's mentor died (probably not hemlock poisoning at the behest of the city council, though), and Touring himself was apparently poisoned entirely without a trial of any kind, public or private.

Clever with the cyanide in the apple trick, though, considering that apples *naturally* contain it (though usually inaccessibly in the seeds, rather than the pulp..)

So Hollywood will look at all those possibilities and determine the following:* They will gloss over his importance to computer science considerably because its hard to explain to their perceived audience. They will likely show something but otherwise ignore it.* They will gloss over his importance to cryptography except to show him personally cracking the enigma machine (ignoring the rest of Bletchley Park most likely)* They will seize on his being homosexual and make most of the film focus on how he was p

Actually, I think as long as they make it about a genius who happened to be gay, instead of a gay man who happened be a genius, it will work out very, very well, both in terms of storyline and in terms of what it does for people.

Mad scientist Alan "Mhz" Turing invents an intelligent robot that transforms into a flying car, which he uses to embark on a great journey into space where he will find true love with an alien prince (cue for love scene on front of spaceship) and, of course, get the idea for the first desktop computer. When he returns to Earth, he builds a prototype for his new invention, which surprisingly turns out to be a modern Mac (because in Hollywood all computers are Macs), however his contemporaries find out about his love with the alien, which forces him to abandon the Mac and travel back into space where he lives happily ever after as the queen of an alien planet. THE END. If this does well at the box office, expect a sequel in a couple of years.

Hm, good start, but I can see you are not an experienced movie writer like me. Your script lacks a lot of things. For a start, you need:- A waving american flag, though it could be there for no apparent reason.- A bomb with a blinking diode on it.- A way in which the character gains new insight and grows as a person.- (Since he is supposed to be smart) a scene of Turing playing chess with someone and thinking for hours, then making a one move checkmate.- (Since space ships are involved and Turing still is

I don't have any large issue with DiCaprio playing Turing. He is versatile, capable, and very hard working. However, the part should go to Jeremy Northam. It would have been a better age match if they tapped him 20 years ago, but there are other factors to consider than matching the actor's age to the character in his prime. I didn't know Turing, so it's just an impression, but I think Jeremy Northam would do a superb job. See The Winslow Boy and tell me I'm wrong.

It could be a zany rom-com with a dog, a monkey using an abacus, and even fit in the gay angle somehow (maybe a fashion designer on the side, a la Zoolander?). Tom Cruise could be the romantic interest, fighting with Turing the whole time about how machines are evil and Xenu is the one true way, until the monkey, riding the dog, slaps Cruise with a fish and makes him realize the errors of his ways. Let Terry Gilliam direct.

It could be a zany rom-com with a dog, a monkey using an abacus, and even fit in the gay angle somehow

Don't be ridiculous, Hollywood would never acknowledge someone being gay in a biopic. Unless of course it's a Big Important Picture about them being gay (could still go that way, it's got the required ending).

I just can't wait to see Leo bite into the poisoned apple. The hormonal castration should be particularly dramatic too. Maybe they can get the political apology right in the film, and properly repent for a truly disgusting deed. But I still think Matt Damon would be a goodlier choice, based on the face.....Well Alan, you were way ahead of your time, but we were still in the dark ages. Sorry about that, and thanks for all the help. PS: If you come back, try San Francisco, Rome, or maybe Key West; I hear th

Because the film will be marketed mostly to the US market, and Americans don't like watching non-Americans doing anything important. Actually they are more likely to rewrite history so that Turing is an American and its all American activity at Bletchley Park that cracks the Enigma. Since the average person on the street has never heard of Turing, or of Enigma it won't make any difference that its all a gross distortion of history.

None of this disproves the AC's point however. British actors act American when playing an American hero and American actors act American when playing a British hero.

I find the villain side slightly different. I suspect much of this stems from British plays where it is more common for villains to be complex and charismatic characters. Notably, American Shakespearian actors such as Walken play such roles.

Isn't it ironic that a Jew and a homosexual helped end the war with such monumental scientific contributions? (Einstein with atomic bombs, Turing with cryptanalysis.):)

Anyway, would love to see an unflinching movie on this great man's life! A true hero and my most favorite computer scientist ever. Tragic what happened to him later in life...

Except that at the end of the war Jews were given some stolen land, while the homos continued to be persecuted to the point of driving the father of Computer Science to commit suicide. The homos that were in nazi camps were transferred to traditional prisons.

Sorry Tricorder fans, Tricorder has been deleted from the Android Market by Google, at the demand of CBS's legal weasels. This all happened without any discussion or warning -- I was simply notified after the fact.

They don't drool over the fact they're into other men, they're like that because they (even if unknowingly) know that they cannot get that man. Same is true for men in relationships too. Women show much more interest towards you when someone else already has taken you.

But I think the "once you have a girlfriend they all come running" phenomenon thing is a mixture of "Well, he's a got a girlfriend, he can't be a total bastard, right?" and "Well, I'm so much better than she is, obviously, and I'll prove it by taking him."

"Bullshit.
No real man cares about women falling in love with eachother. We just like to see hot chicks dyke out.
Q: Why do women fake orgasms?
A: They think we fucking care.
Quit sissy-fying guyhood or GTFO."

because the anus tends to get torn and bleed much more than the naturally self-lubricating vagina or mouth. Other fact: gay men tend to have A LOT MORE partners than anyone else what with no female inhibitions to put the brakes on things. Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.

You do know that you can have anal sex with women too, right? Besides, females don't put much brakes to amount of sex men have, not at least for me. Usually they're trying to get sex too often. On the other hand, I do live in Thailand.

And what would you say about having sex with kathoeys? They're originally men, but have turned into women, have boobs and are generally even more beautiful than real women. Is that gay sex if it's pre-op (still have penis), post-op (now they have vagina, but have been men be

I think Mr. Homophobic AC has a point with the female inhibition thing. However, that concept implies to me that it's a general male issue rather than an issue specific to _homosexual_ males - straight males would also act like that if straight females were more cooperative.

I know you're a troll, but let's do a simple takedown of some of your "points" shall we?

He should have waited for AIDS to come around.

He died in 1954 at the age of 41. AIDS was first discovered ca. 1979, so he would've been 66. Do you know a lot of 66-year-olds who have lots of sex? Especially with multiple partners? Neither do I.

AIDS = the Anally Injected Death Sentence!

Not anymore. Most people with AIDS in the first world live nearly as long as their counterparts without AIDS. Sure, it's still likely to do you in at some point, but when that point is at 70 vs 75 without AIDS, it's not such a huge setback. Nevertheless, the disease can still be deadly at a young age, and having a weakened immune system makes even minor infections much more serious.

Fact: anal sex transmits this virus more effectively than other forms of sex because the anus tends to get torn and bleed much more than the naturally self-lubricating vagina or mouth.

The mouth does not naturally lubricate per se; saliva is a digestive aid. However, there is nothing particularly heterosexual about the mouth nor particularly homosexual about the anus.

Other fact: gay men tend to have A LOT MORE partners than anyone else what with no female inhibitions to put the brakes on things.

Perhaps, although my straight friends seem to have a lot more sex than I do. Do you know Alan Turing's sexual history? If not, then tendencies are meaningless to the evaluation of the life of one man.

Being a gay man is a disease. AIDS is an advanced form.

There are far more heterosexuals with AIDS than there are homosexuals in total.

He was a fag. Stop making it normal. It's not. No matter how hard you try.

In one sense, you're right: homosexuals account for 2–5% of the population. In another sense, though, you are wrong: homosexuality occurs with enough frequency that it is not outside the range of normal variation, and it occurs in other species as well (to a much more limited extend). Also, there are plenty of things that (presently) aren't normal under the same criteria, like having a PhD, being a mathematical genius, and fundamentally defining the elements of an entirely new discipline. Are those also bad?

I bet he was afraid to approach a woman anyway.

Could be, but of what relevance is that? If he wasn't interested in women, then being afraid to approach them is largely irrelevant, especially at a time when women were virtually nonexistent in math and science.

They can be manipulative by nature you know.

Funnily enough again, the most manipulative people I know are straight. Although I've certainly known manipulative homosexuals, they do not seem over-represented vis-á-vis heterosexuals. Hard statistics, of course, would be preferable.

Unless you're enough of a man to win their trust.

What, you mean like an anonymous coward?

Fags aren't.

See, once again I find myself in the strange position where most of my friends consider me the most trustworthy person they know. It's a shame you never bothered to actually meet some real gay people.

They can be substitute "girlfriends" to women.

Some are, to be sure. I have one straight female friend, and we usually do "guy" things together. The rest of my friends are straight males, none of whom are particularly lacking for masculinity, I might add.

They definitely can't close the deal.

A gay man can have sex with a woman just as well as a straight man. In fact, he might even enjoy it (physically). It will never, however, be what he primarily desires nor what he finds as expressive of a lasting emotional connection. Thus, gay men tend to avoid sex with women, since it leads to false promises, mistrust, and broken hearts.

I know you're a troll, but let's do a simple takedown of some of your "points" shall we?

Trolls exist to waste other people's time, it's probably copy-pasta and by taking the time you've lost. That you know just makes you look stupid, it's like knowing it's a trap but walking right into it anyway. The only way to win is not to play.

There are far more heterosexuals with AIDS than there are homosexuals in total.

Estimates place the homosexual percentage of the population anywhere from one to twenty percent, with the five to ten percent range being backed by most studies. If more than five percent of the heterosexual population has AIDS, then the species is in a pretty poor state...

The reason Turing is so respected is that he, like Dijkstra and very few others, made significant contributions to both the theoretical and practical side of computer science. As well as proposing a theoretical model of computation, he worked to create some of the first real computing engines. That's what makes people regard him as the father of modern computing: taking some interesting theories and turning them into machines that helped win the second world war and went on to produce the foundations for

But nothing he did at Bletchley Park has anything to do with "produc[ing] the foundations for our society." His machines there were totally special-purpose rotor machines, no more related to modern computers than were the German Enigma machines they existed to decrypt or the Polish decryption "Bomba" they were based on.

He didn't have anything to do with Colossus, which was the one project from there that did have any relevance to modern computing; the idea that he was responsible for Colossus is a common mi

Post's 1936 paper described the same kind of machine, and Post came up with better versions of it (nobody uses Turing's original formulation, and the formulations actually used in textbooks etc usually build on Post's work).

I can't find a reference right this second but I'm fairly certain that nobody thought of the DFA or PDA abstractions for >10 years after all three papers were published (I think Post's later work on string rewriting and the PCP helped lead to those ideas along with the corresponding i

The fact that things got named after Turing when terminology was first being settled in the late 30s-early 50s is, as you say, not attributable to his homosexuality. But that's not what I'm talking about- though naming things is a very visible way of assigning credit etc it doesn't explain the continuing total imbalance of credit or the popular idolization [wikipedia.org].

You make an interesting point about oracles- I don't know about independent inventors there- but here's a relevant quote from a paper "Turing Oracle Mach

Since the alternative would involve attempting to make money by releasing a movie about math, I suspect that they'll have limited choice.

You can really only have so many minutes of 'montage of intense-looking-dude scribbling math on stuff' before people lose interest. At that point, you have to split the remaining feature-length-film time between WWII drama and persecution and suicide drama...